On Jul 27, 3:43 pm, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > Ignore inner experiences for the purposes of answering this question. > (for now at least) > > Assume there is a program which chooses the exactly correct YouTube > videos to display in response to any given question, and it chooses > the videos so well that not even your best friend could distinguish > between it and a live skype call with you. > > My question to you is: given the YouTube video responses give the > appearence of an intelligent person, does that imply that an > intelligent process must be involved? Or, can something behave > intelligently without any intelligent process being involved?
That's what I'm saying, the fact that it would be theoretically possible to make a YouTube bot like that (it's only a matter of how long it would have to run well to fool someone. If the YouTuring test only lasts 20 seconds, it wouldn't be that hard to compete against a live YouTube) means that appearances of intelligence don't mean anything other than that's how it appears to a particular observer using a particular method of observation. This doesn't mean that the YouTube program isn't a form of 'intelligence' though, just that it's not the intelligence of a person that can feel and understand. It's inorganic molecular intelligence. It has a different palette of interesting abilities than we do. >I liked your contrast of: >"I AM THAT I AM" to " i = square root of negative one" Heh, thanks. The hyper proprietary and the hyper generic. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
